"Several of them posted about their experiences with the accused as a warning to other women comics to be on their guard with him."

In Making a Murderer, the cops decided who the murderer was before they investigated, and so created a false narrative with the help of multiple people testifying. One woman, who was a blood relative of the victim, testified about how she came to find a crucial piece of evidence miraculously - and by that, I mean she…

I can't quite tell what point you are trying to make.

why does the proportion matter?

1. UCB should've fired the guy after thier investigation - in fact, I think they had a legal obligation to do so given what they apparently knew. It's the "few" not-so-anonymous tweets with which I take issue. First, they weren't really anonymous. Asking other potential victims to contact UCB in that tweet leaves…

because it makes you harder to pigeonhole and ignore.

at least 343 - but that's just those lucky enough to be exonerated based on DNA testing. http://www.innocenceproject…

define "private"

right - firing him was the right choice. Broadcasting that they fired him because he is a serial rapist is a very, very poor choice.

His statement is neither stripped of context, nor is it neutralized by the context. Accusations shouldn't confer guilt and warrant punishment. It's pretty horrific that this simple idea is so poorly grasped when the wrong ox is being gored.

"We should believe the accused and the accuser equally, until we have the ability to justifiably start to believe one over the other"

Bring back Buzzkills. Please.

Well, the Supreme Court killed the Fourth amendment two weeks ago, and no one seemed to notice. http://www.supremecourt.gov… Read the last paragraph of Kagan's dissent - she nailed it on the head.

no one is ever found "innocent." Not Guilty means there wasn't enough evidence to sustain a conviction, not that he didn't do it.

Veracity of the cell phone records - they are inert, they are unable to lie. They may have a wider degree of error than contemplated by the jury (hence the retrial), but the substance of the records themselves is not at issue. For the "potential alibi witnesses galore" - unless you have been an attorney working a…

You're taking shots at the dead lawyer, not the dead victim. And if you read the actual pleading, the retrial was granted less on the alleged ineffectiveness of counsel than on the prosecution changing their own timeline of events at the Feb 2016 hearing. You're taking 16 years of hindsight with the added benefit of…

I bet you say dumb, safe shit at parties for easy, superficial acceptance from people who don't really value your opinions. .

he had a good attorney, and you have no basis to say he would have gone free had he been represented by someone else. But she's dead, so it's easy to take shots at her and, apparently, read in racism and bias where there may be none.

Judges aren't the finders of fact (guilty or not guilty), the jury is. The judge has nothing to feel duped about. New evidence came up, and he decided it merited review by the finder of fact. If anyone is to feel wronged by all of this, it's Adnan's dead lawyer who has been second guessed and insulted by every…

great. now I want to know how the nicole saga ended up. Thanks for blowing it, dick.